Wrongful Termination and Lack of Contractual Just Cause
Mr. Blockhus’s termination was carried out without just cause and was later defended through reliance on the concepts of “honest belief” and the assertion that he “would have been terminated anyway.” However, neither of these rationales is supported by the governing employment contract or the procedural protections afforded under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The contract requires that disciplinary action be based upon a fair investigation, reliable evidence, and a just-cause determination reached through an impartial process. In this matter, those contractual safeguards were not followed. Mr. Blockhus was not meaningfully included in the investigation, key evidence was not fully evaluated, and significant factual disputes remained unresolved.
The “honest belief” defense cannot substitute for contractual compliance. Even if an employer claims to have believed allegations to be true, that belief must still arise from a reasonable, thorough, and objectively supported investigation. A conclusion reached without interviewing the accused employee, without authenticating critical evidence, and without considering exculpatory information does not satisfy the contractual standard for just cause.
Similarly, the assertion that Mr. Blockhus “would have been fired anyway” is speculative and unsupported by the agreement governing his employment. The contract does not permit termination based on hypothetical outcomes or retrospective justification. Rather, it requires that discipline be grounded in established facts, verified evidence, and adherence to procedural protections.
By relying on post hoc rationalizations rather than the standards required under the contract, United effectively bypassed the protections intended to ensure fairness and due process. The termination decision therefore cannot be justified solely by generalized defenses that are not contained within, or supported by, the governing contractual framework.
Accordingly, the termination of Mr. Blockhus without a completed, fair, and contract-compliant investigation raises substantial concerns regarding whether just cause existed and whether the Company adhered to its contractual obligations.
The Termination of Mr. Blockhus cannot be upheld because it was not the result of a fair, complete, or reliable process.
It was the product of an investigation that departed from basic standards of due process, relied on unverified evidence, and was conducted without the participation of the very employee whose career was at stake.
At its core, this case is not a dispute over interpretation of facts—it is a failure of process.
Mr. Blockhus was never interviewed. He was never provided the evidence relied upon to terminate him. The investigation proceeded while he was medically unavailable and on approved FMLA leave. At the same time, the evidence forming the basis of the allegations was never authenticated, never verified, and never subjected to any objective scrutiny. These are not minor procedural defects—they are fundamental failures that undermine the integrity of the entire process.
Even more troubling, the lead investigator admitted under oath that this case was an exception to standard practice. In dozens of similar investigations, the accused employee was interviewed. Here, that basic step was omitted. This deviation alone demonstrates that the process applied to Mr. Blockhus was not consistent, not reliable, and not fair.
The inconsistencies do not end there. Evidence of comparable conduct by the complainant, Ms. Lense was disregarded, while unverified allegations against Mr. Blockhus were accepted without scrutiny. This unequal treatment reflects a broader failure to apply policies in a consistent and even-handed manner.
Under well-established principles of just cause, discipline must be based on a fair investigation, supported by reliable evidence, and applied consistently. None of those requirements were met here.
Additionally, the contractual grievance and arbitration process—intended to provide finality and fairness—was never completed. No final award was issued. No binding decision was rendered. As a result, the termination rests not on a valid adjudication, but on an incomplete and defective process.
Taken together, these failures establish that the termination of Mr. Blockhus cannot be sustained under the Collective Bargaining Agreement or applicable law.
This case presents a straightforward question: whether a career can be ended based on an investigation where the accused was never heard, the evidence was never verified, and the process itself broke down.
The answer must be NO.
Where an employer fails to follow its own procedures, relies on unreliable evidence, and applies discipline inconsistently, the resulting action cannot stand. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to restore the employee to the position he would have occupied but for the improper termination.
For these reasons, Mr. Blockhus should be granted full relief, including reinstatement, restoration of seniority, back pay, and expungement of all disciplinary records.